BellaStrega

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, in CoH, a blaster can punch the tanker's toggles off. In WoW, a mage cannot punch a warrior's armor off.

Advantage = WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny I read that exact same sentence and concluded the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Toggle-dropping is a terrible kludge. I'm sorry if you like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry you'd prefer one AT always beating another, regardless of player ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because pointing out that toggle-dropping is a kludge means exactly the same thing as saying that one AT should always beat another, regardless of player ability.

I'm sorry you feel so crippled in PVP that you need a huge crutch to have a chance of winning*. But, pretend for a moment that you're not so invested in the idea of squishies smearing melee characters across the landscape and imagine a world where the model for balancing PVP is not based on depriving several ATs of their entire primary or secondary powersets.

I think that'd be pretty cool.

* I'm sure the odds of you actually holding this viewpoint are about as likely as me holding the viewpoint that melee should always win. But, hey, what's sauce for the goose and all that, right? Please don't assign arguments you don't like to me just because you can't imagine any situation but the two extremes of "toggle dropping or melee always wins."

[ QUOTE ]


Whoops, I totally thought you were saying WOW was superior because you COULD have a mage punch a warrriors off and I was saying you could do that in CoH because you could do that in the form of toggle dropping.......me am dumba$$.

Sorry.

See, I told you don't play WOW.



[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I don't generally favor WoW or CoH. Sometimes I prefer one, sometimes the other. They both have different aspects that appeal to me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, in CoH, a blaster can punch the tanker's toggles off. In WoW, a mage cannot punch a warrior's armor off.

Advantage = WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny I read that exact same sentence and concluded the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Toggle-dropping is a terrible kludge. I'm sorry if you like it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOW!! OMG!!! YOUARETEHBEST!!!

PvP is still awful compared to the other PvP choices out there(5 million customers=doing something right).

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm? I've played the "5 MILLION CUSTOMER" game, and neither the PvE or PvP can compare. Can you transform into a flying squid while your opponent jumps 100m in the air and a third person irradiates you while running 80mph?

No?

Not as good, sorry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can a mage punch my warrior's armor clean off?

No?

Then CoH's PVP can't be as good, can it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it can- It's called toggle dropping. A Tank has their defenses activated, along comes a Stalker/Mage or another AT- proceeds with a AS or a brawl, BAM!! Tank loses their armour/defenses. I don't play WOW so if my parallel is incorrect please tell me.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in CoH, a blaster can punch the tanker's toggles off. In WoW, a mage cannot punch a warrior's armor off.

Advantage = WoW.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.

Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh okay, so it's just the usual bait-and-switch that comes like clockwork. Suppression still brings in a huge host of QOL problems and is as bafflingly asinine as the previous idea. They may as well just change the power name to "kinda sneaky...sometimes".

Well, so much for boosting my expectations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not one who believes that using stealth to click glowies was an exploit - you paid for it by getting less xp, for example.

However, I want to know - what kind of QoL problems does this change bring?

[ QUOTE ]


Heh. Interesting point.

I'll admit my own bias, I'm heavily anti-Blizzard and pro-superhero, so that colors my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

More about the toggle-dropping than about your biases.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why else would a boss' pistol do so much more damage than a minion's?

[/ QUOTE ]

The boss has better aim, more skill with handling a pistol, and/or more modifications to his firearm (Both legal and illegal)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have a minion and a boss.

Both have a pistol.

The minion shoots you, and it stings.

The boss shoots you, and you get knocked on your [censored] and need a blood transfusion and possibly an organ transplant.

It's for dramatic convenience, there is no realistic justification, nor does there need to be.

[ QUOTE ]

That sounds like a smart implementation, but when you say an Elite Boss, I hope you don't mean that the AV will spawn as an Elite Boss.

AVs are supposed to be special. I would prefer that when my group size is too small, etc. that they AV not be in the mission, but at least I got one of the factiosn bosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope what you said isn't what he meant. I would prefer that when my group size is too small or difficulty too low, that I still get to fight Anti-Matter or Infernal.

The rankings as minions, lts, bosses, etc are all arbitrary and metagame definitions anyway. Why else would a boss' pistol do so much more damage than a minion's?

[ QUOTE ]
Y'know, at first I thought it was kinda sickening the way people are falling all over themselves with joy over this. After all, none of these are really that big of a deal. Yeah, the AV one is great for soloers, but getting AV teams was never really that tough. GOOD AV teams? A bit tougher, I admit, but hardly impossible.

But these are certainly not worth offering one's firstborn for...

But then it occurred to me that maybe this just shows how starved for something positive the players of this game really are. These reactions are not unlike giving food to a starving man, or water to someone that has just walked across a desert. Maybe you should take this as a sign to give some positive changes to this community rather than nerf on top of nerf.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, one of the factors that strongly contributed to my decision to let CoH lapse while still paying for WoW was the decision to replace several elite bosses with AVs/Heroes in CoV. Since that is getting changed in a manner that I like, I think it is pretty positive. I think this will have a fairly large impact on higher-level play.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may be in the minority here, but I like the way AVs currently spawn. I have so much more fun fighting AVs to the edge with just two players, then gangbanging them with a team of 8. If I can't duo AVs, all the challenge is taken out of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can. Just turn your difficulty up to the point where a duo will spawn one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but that's not the same thing. Now the AV is +3 which is a lot tougher for a duo than an even-con AV or even +1 AV.

That's like going back to square one and requiring soloists to "Gain 3 more levels before you trying fighting your AV."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unyielding - the fourth level - will spawn +1 or +2, not +3. It'll also spawn AVs for a duo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOW!! OMG!!! YOUARETEHBEST!!!

PvP is still awful compared to the other PvP choices out there(5 million customers=doing something right).

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm? I've played the "5 MILLION CUSTOMER" game, and neither the PvE or PvP can compare. Can you transform into a flying squid while your opponent jumps 100m in the air and a third person irradiates you while running 80mph?

No?

Not as good, sorry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can a mage punch my warrior's armor clean off?

No?

Then CoH's PVP can't be as good, can it?

[ QUOTE ]

AND now...we're changing the way Archvillains spawn. A ton of forum goers disliked adding so many AV's into missions a while back...so we've come up with a solution. If the team size and mission difficulty are ABOVE a certain level, an Archvillain spawns. Below that, players will face only an Elite Boss. If the mission is set on the first two levels of difficulty, it takes 4 heroes or more to spawn an Arch Villain. On the third level, 3 heroes or more. On the fourth level, 2 heroes. On the highest (Invincible), a solo hero will spawn an AV. Note this works in BOTH City of Heroes and Villains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you (or the appropriate people) reevaluate the missions that have been given timers to (as far as we know) prevent farming those missions for powerleveling?

The aggro cap makes herding difficult or impossible. The issue 5 + ED reductions to defenses makes attempting it very deadly anyway. People who have been using those missions to farm still have the untimed versions. Some of the timed missions are in story arcs (Shadowhunter and Requiem), which introduces urgency where it may not be absolutely necessary. I think it is necessary at times - the end to World Wide Red is a lot of fun, partly because it is such a time-sensitive thing. "They're attacking the war wall RIGHT NOW!" As opposed to Requiem, who's loitering with some warwolves on a relatively dead Earth.

Just so it's clear: I really like the changes to AVs/Heroes posted.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those keeping score at home:

Game launch: April 30, 2004
Issue 1: June 30, 2004 (2 months)
Issue 2: September 16, 2004 (about 2 1/2 months)
Issue 3: January 4, 2005 (a little over 3 months)
Issue 4: May 4, 2005 (4 months)
Issue 5: August 31, 2005 (a little under 4 months)
Issue 6: October 31, 2005 (2 months)

Average time between issues: 2.91 months!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, it really felt like so much longer. I think it was the hyping.

Oh well, they did say that they were moving to a six-month schedule for issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pointless nitpick: Issue 1 released on June 29.

[ QUOTE ]

Yes - I was busy scaring myself half to death playing F.E.A.R. and The Movies for a week after the regular holiday. So if you sent a PM and haven't heard back yet - give me a few days.

[/ QUOTE ]

How'd you like FEAR? I've started it, but with too many other things going on, I haven't played very far.

It's been creepy so far, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understand the sentiment, but I forsee a likely outcome I am strongly opposed to: that having a healer/buffer requires a counter aggro magnet for that character to survive.

I see nothing about current conditions that warrant even risking that outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why it'd be a problem, actually. I meanif tankers are going to need defenders to survive the aggro they draw, why shouldn't defenders need tankers to hold the aggro. If anything, it'll give tankers more reason to hold that aggro.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather not see another AT crippled just because we're suffering.
Tanks shouldn't need defenders, making defenders need tanks isn't
going to make anything right in the world, it'll just make another
set of players unhappy. Not what CoH needs atm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how the idea that having heals and buffs causing aggro somehow translates to "crippling the ATs with buffs and heals." Clearly, all kinds of actions already draw aggro, and I believe buffing and healing draws some as well (but not as much as pure damage).

Also, that whooshing sound was my point going over your head.

[ QUOTE ]
Streak Breaker (I just talked to Poz about it
If you miss three times in a row, then your next attack will always hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had miss streaks of 6-7 against even-level stuff.

My favorite is when it's sappers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heals and buffs should generate more aggro than they do.

The first reaction of most teams who confront a group of Tsoo is, "Find the sorcerer first! Kill the sorcerers!" The sorcerers will heal and buff the bad guys and debuff the team. They therefore must die first. Same way with Sky Raider Engineers. Same way with Devouring Earth, at least when emanators used to drop regularly.

The AI should operate somewhat similarly.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to fit right into the whole idea of "risk vs reward." Your presence provides a big boost to any team you're on. I don't see why there shouldn't be a bit more risk for that.

[ QUOTE ]
That, should something like that go into effect, would be a step in the direction of undoing what states and company are trying to accomplish. And that is, a game where any group makeup is viable. Right now, tanks requaring support to "tank" is a step in the wrong direction, but the dev's seem oblivious to this. You add in the healer hate every other MMO seems to have, and it's a step FURTER in the wrong direction. Once you start having AT's depended on other AT's to do there job, you lose viritiy, and we become like everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

If tankers should require defenders, I don't see why defenders shouldn't require tankers.

Also, the aggro model in CoH is so childishly simple it's a [censored] insult for it to be any AT's primary job.

[ QUOTE ]
One taunt bot, one heal bot, maybe a buffer/debuff, then the rest damage, that would become the standered team makeup of CoH, just like it is everywhere else. The almighty "pull" would become the tactic of the day, and we'd basically end up being EQ in tights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy slippery slope, Batman. There is a vast tract of land between "healing and buffing generating hate" and "now we're all forced into the holy EQ trinity."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize the engine isn't built that way. I just happen to feel it was a dumb way to build the engine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not disagreeing. Past experience just indicates that changes of that sort are very unlikely, as opposed to various tinkering with powers to scale their magnitude, duration, frequency of use, etc.

I won't touch how out of whack I think 3/5ths of the CoH inherents are compared to their closest CoV equivalents. Wrong forum for all but one of them.

Offtopic: Holy simoley! Is your post count accurate? Woah! (Not a dig of any sort. This is actual awe.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is.

Also, at this point, I do mention things I would like to see, but I have absolutely no expectation that any of them will be implemented.

but I would still love to see aggro management a bit more complex than fire and forget taunts.

[ QUOTE ]
It's possible it does draw something today. But remember that they recently did something to the AI - intial attack runs by large mob groups seems to devote some foes to nearly every person in your party (countless times now I've had stuff run past my Brute or scrapping Stalker in CoV to go straight for the rear ranks of the party before they did anything at all). This may make it hard to tell what the AI is reacting to. If you meant before I5, then I couldn't say. It never seemed anger lots of mobs to use Twilight Grasp, though it certainly annoys the target.

If there is some aggro component now I have no problem with it. I think the current situation is OK. Hell, I'm usually attacking - including AoEs - even with my Defender (certainly with my Corruptor) so I am used to taking heat.

But not all sets have the tools at hand that Dark Miasma and Rad Emission do. Kinetics and Empathy (chosen for being strong healers) are very weak at defending themselves, where as sets like Dark and Rad are good at defending everyone, including themselves.

As Kali mentions, perhaps making them able to buff themselves would help this, but it seems obvious that that's a tweak to the engine/interface - today no one can target themselves at all. Moreover, I suspect that the lack of self-buffage was intended as a balance factor. Some of the most powerful/useful buffs in the game are exactly the ones that cannot be cast on one's self. Examples that come to mind - Speed Boost, Adrenaline Boost, Fortitude, and the various Defense/DR Bubbles.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I do not believe that giving defenders the ability to buff themselves with their own buffs would really unbalance the game. As it stands, some defenders can benefit from their entire primaries and others cannot. Unsurprisingly, the most powerful sets happen to be those that benefit the user (Storm, Dark, Rad).

I realize the engine isn't built that way. I just happen to feel it was a dumb way to build the engine.

[ QUOTE ]

Well it just that I recall drawing aggro with good old Defense Options when all he did was fire off a heal (Rad/Ene) not a debuff because when I first started playing I didn't use them, hey I tried them but was unsure they did anything other then get everything mad at me.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to team with a D3 who didn't take Darkest Night because it drew too much aggro. She picked it up later for PVP and may have been intoxicated by her sudden power.

[ QUOTE ]

I understand the sentiment, but I forsee a likely outcome I am strongly opposed to: that having a healer/buffer requires a counter aggro magnet for that character to survive.

I see nothing about current conditions that warrant even risking that outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why it'd be a problem, actually. I meanif tankers are going to need defenders to survive the aggro they draw, why shouldn't defenders need tankers to hold the aggro. If anything, it'll give tankers more reason to hold that aggro.

[ QUOTE ]
Then almost all Defenders/Corrupters need better defenses, or possibly more HP (either of which would probably piss off Blasters!). Also, this is unduly unfair to healers as opposed to other Defender types. Should buffing draw aggro? What about buffs that you can cast before a fight. Should just being a Defender/Corrupter draw aggro?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I have already stated that I feel that defenders should be able to target themselves for buffs.

Second, if healing/buffing drew enough aggro to make it dangerous in a fight, there'd be much more point to having an AT that's all about aggro management.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, how about this:

Heals generating aggro.
Is that crazy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem is that there is no way in hell that Defenders can survive that aggro. If we're talking Taunt level aggro here, no way. Not without some changes to the AT. Or unless you want this game to become one that requires the "holy trinity" style teams. IE: If you have a healer you must have a tank or the healer gets creamed.

There's a fine line between being useful and being required. Frankly, I don't want to see anyone be required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Healing should generate aggro.

If you come to a Tsoo spawn, who do you kill first?

[ QUOTE ]

From what I've heard all the balancing is for heroic level situations. So it's fair to ask what does a tank do on heroic when there is no need for anyone to "tank".

And healing does generate aggro I believe. Not like a taunt but I thought it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number of times my FF defender drew aggro while doing nothing but running disp bubble and putting bubbles on team mates convinces me there is aggro here.

I can't say so much with others, because I've never played empathy, and everyone else has debuffs.